So you'd do nothing to change it, yet you bash Democrats for being pro-choice. Saying they support abortion is just not true.

 

Dems support a woman getting laid every night and if she gets pregnant go get an abortion, don't worry about responsibility or morals or a a little baby. then hey, go do the process all over again.

 

That is their pro choice.

Dems support a woman getting laid every night and if she gets pregnant go get an abortion, don't worry about responsibility or morals or a a little baby. then hey, go do the process all over again.

 

That is their pro choice.

 

:lol2: That's just flat out not true.

 

Either way, you're no better. You bash them for being pro-choice, then say you wouldn't change anything. Isn't that being a hypocrite? You claim it's so horrible and wrong to be pro-choice, yet if given the chance, you've said you wouldn't change it.

:lol2: That's just flat out not true.

 

Either way, you're no better. You bash them for being pro-choice, then say you wouldn't change anything. Isn't that being a hypocrite? You claim it's so horrible and wrong to be pro-choice, yet if given the chance, you've said you wouldn't change it.

 

How can I change a woman who is a mother to 2 great little kids and the birth will kill her. How can I make her die? I couldnt.

 

But being easy then get pregnant or a woman who gets pregnant so she can get more welfare money. Yeah I would stop that.

And yeah thats what Dems help support.

Edited May 18, 201511 yr by bugatti

The truth is the last FOUR elections were extremely close. In fact, Bush lost the General Election vote to Gore but won the Electoral College vote.

 

So the GOP has lost 3 out of 4 votes as it were. But they are successful locally. Why? I don't know. I do know it is interesting that Gerry mandering is done locally but not in the Presidential election because each state gives its Electoral votes to the candidate who carries the state regardless of district or region.

 

I'm not using the above as a slap at the GOP. I'm not saying they are doing something wrong to win local elections. The Dems have done it for years in the local level. Just curious if that is a plausible explanation.

 

Personally, I think it's a stretch to say that the last two elections were close. President Obama enjoyed a 100+ electoral vote lead in each, and won the popular vote by 4.9 million+ in each (it was 10 million against McCain). By comparison, the only two won by Republicans in the last quarter century were won by electoral margins of 5 and 35 (in 2000 and 2004 respectively). President Bush won by 3 million in the popular vote over Kerry, and as mentioned, lost by around 500,000 to Gore.

 

You have to go back to George H.W. Bush's election over Dukakis to find the last time a Republican candidate won comfortably, winning 426-111 in the Electoral College. I find it not coincidental that was the last time the Republican candidate carried California. Ever since, the Democrats have carried the entire west coast, including California's 50+ electoral votes. Consider that swing - from 1948-1988, the only time the Democrats carried California was in 1964 for Lyndon Johnson. A Democrat was elected three times in that span (and coincidentally, all won only one election, though obviously there were extenuating circumstances for Kennedy). Since, a Democrat has been elected four times (in just over half the time as the previous), and the two times a Republican won, it was tooth and nail.

Personally, I think it's a stretch to say that the last two elections were close. President Obama enjoyed a 100+ electoral vote lead in each, and won the popular vote by 4.9 million+ in each (it was 10 million against McCain). By comparison, the only two won by Republicans in the last quarter century were won by electoral margins of 5 and 35 (in 2000 and 2004 respectively). President Bush won by 3 million in the popular vote over Kerry, and as mentioned, lost by around 500,000 to Gore.

 

You have to go back to George H.W. Bush's election over Dukakis to find the last time a Republican candidate won comfortably, winning 426-111 in the Electoral College. I find it not coincidental that was the last time the Republican candidate carried California. Ever since, the Democrats have carried the entire west coast, including California's 50+ electoral votes. Consider that swing - from 1948-1988, the only time the Democrats carried California was in 1964 for Lyndon Johnson. A Democrat was elected three times in that span (and coincidentally, all won only one election, though obviously there were extenuating circumstances for Kennedy). Since, a Democrat has been elected four times (in just over half the time as the previous), and the two times a Republican won, it was tooth and nail.

 

I stand corrected. :lol2:

 

I remember that Bush defeated Kerry but didn't he register maybe the most votes for a losing candidate in history?

I remember that Bush defeated Kerry but didn't he register maybe the most votes for a losing candidate in history?

 

That was probably true at the time, but both McCain and Romney registered more votes as losing candidates. I think basically the increase is tied to both a growing population and (perhaps) unprecedentedly high voter turnouts. 61.6% of eligible voters voted in the 2008 election. That compares to just 49.0% of eligible voters voting in the 1996 election.

 

The increases in voter turnout is something I'm interested in. Is that simply a function of the constant "everyone should vote" media slams that they do nowadays? It's probably not a popular opinion, but I think the concept of everyone should vote is malarkey. You should vote if you are informed. Every informed voter should vote, and anyone who wants to vote, should inform themselves.

It's probably not a popular opinion, but I think the concept of everyone should vote is malarkey. You should vote if you are informed. Every informed voter should vote, and anyone who wants to vote, should inform themselves.

 

Wow, DF...I thought I was the only one. I wholeheartedly agree with what you've said here.

 

I also believe you should vote only if there is someone you deem worth voting for. I will never, ever again vote against a candidate.

Yes' date=' I think she'll lose the election.[/quote']

 

Gonna be really hard if she starts with 246 by default.

Gonna be really hard if she starts with 246 by default.

 

That was the crux of the article. My question is - is it correct?

How can I change a woman who is a mother to 2 great little kids and the birth will kill her. How can I make her die? I couldnt.

 

But being easy then get pregnant or a woman who gets pregnant so she can get more welfare money. Yeah I would stop that.

And yeah thats what Dems help support.

 

So if Hillary said she was going to push to make abortion illegal would you vote for her?

Do you support putting women in prison if they have an abortion even though it would be illegal?

So if Hillary said she was going to push to make abortion illegal would you vote for her?

Do you support putting women in prison if they have an abortion even though it would be illegal?

 

She isnt, but NO, I would not vote for her.

 

If a woman kills a baby and its illegal, then yeah, go do the time.

 

Of course they will argue that illegal immigrants are here illegally and not being deported.

She isnt, but NO, I would not vote for her.

 

If a woman kills a baby and its illegal, then yeah, go do the time.

 

 

Your first comment tells me that abortion isn't a priority for you when it comes to electing a president. I think that's true to most. Why then bring it up as an "issue" with HRC?

 

If a woman kills a baby and its illegal, then yeah, go do the time.

 

.

 

This comment tells me you view abortion as "murder." So why would you allow "murder" in the case of a rape?

Gotta stay center to win the big House. Bill Clinton understands that. Jeb Bush understands that.

 

How did that theory work for McCain and Romney? Both were very center while Obama is as left as just about any mainstream politician we have ever seen. Numerous reports showed that a significant majority of American's political views were closer to McCain and Romney's rather than Obama's but he easily beat both.

 

I think anymore, it comes down to personality and public speaking ability. McCain and Romney were to be blunt, pretty boring guys that did not excite the majority of Americans who vote with no clue what candidates stand for all the remember is who was the "cooler" candidate which Obama won that shallow contest easily just like Bill Clinton did and Hillary will benefit from her husbands celebrity status and probably win the White House on his legacy.

This comment tells me you view abortion as "murder." So why would you allow "murder" in the case of a rape?

 

Rape isnt consensual recreational sex.